PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[1487]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Maybe Kenney is reinstating the wage tax deduction?



Read more here:
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...y18-budget-proposal-opioid-licenses.html

this is basically the same rate of reduction that has been in place for most of the last 20 years or so.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Glory! For a Philadelphia resident with an annual income of $200,000, this amounts to annual savings of roughly $19. Pointless. What is the shortfall to the government? With such minimal impact, I see no reason to implement this. The government should wait until it can make a meaningful chance. If the amendment on property tax goes through or something else happens that allows anything but the most insignificant, silly de minimis decrease.

Everything in government happens incrementally. If they continue to decrease it by a hundredth of a percentage point every year it'll add up to a meaningful decrease.

On another note, I still don't understand why we charge nonresidents less. Why incentivize moving out of the city? It should be reversed.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by 1487

this is basically the same rate of reduction that has been in place for most of the last 20 years or so.

The reduction in rate has been frozen since at least 2008. I think they're just re-implementing the reduction.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Glory! For a Philadelphia resident with an annual income of $200,000, this amounts to annual savings of roughly $19. Pointless. What is the shortfall to the government? With such minimal impact, I see no reason to implement this. The government should wait until it can make a meaningful chance. If the amendment on property tax goes through or something else happens that allows anything but the most insignificant, silly de minimis decrease.

It's better than nothing honestly. I would rather them start to slowly decrease it, then cut it to 2% when Harrisburg allows Philadelphia to alter the tax structure.

[Knight Hospitaller]

While I'd like to see a more meaningful incremental reduction, the whole point was for the decrease to be subtle and "automatic" so that the politicians would just have to adjust to the new reality, rather than have to actually do anything affirmative. Whatever works. Most suburbs at at 1%. That should be their target, but I think they'd be competitive at 2%. Wage tax doesn't apply to me, so they'd still have to get rid or simplify all of the other taxes/regs to encourage a sole-proprietor like me move back into town. I miss it, but not enough to complicate my life to be there.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by summersm343

It's better than nothing honestly. I would rather them start to slowly decrease it, then cut it to 2% when Harrisburg allows Philadelphia to alter the tax structure.

Mmm...this de minimis reduction is putting $20 back in the pockets of affluent people and less back in the pockets of less affluent people. Won't be felt. But it's still however many millions of dollars that the city loses that could be put towards something like the the cap over I-95 just proposed between Walnut and Chestnut. The total reduction is .0097% of income. That's insanely small. If it's the same the next couple years, there is still going to be a significant cut if and when an alteration to the tax structure allows for it. These kind of cuts are too small to help anyone and are also too small to avoid sticker shock if there is a real future cut. So the only thing I see it doing is cutting into city funds marginally.

Anything less than an .1% reduction (i.e. 3.9004% to 3.8004%) really just fails to serve any identifiable purpose. And that's being generous

[br323206]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Mmm...this de minimis reduction is putting $20 back in the pockets of affluent people and less back in the pockets of less affluent people. Won't be felt. But it's still however many millions of dollars that the city loses that could be put towards something like the the cap over I-95 just proposed between Walnut and Chestnut. The total reduction is .0097% of income. That's insanely small. If it's the same the next couple years, there is still going to be a significant cut if and when an alteration to the tax structure allows for it. These kind of cuts are too small to help anyone and are also too small to avoid sticker shock if there is a real future cut. So the only thing I see it doing is cutting into city funds marginally.

Anything less than an .1% reduction (i.e. 3.9004% to 3.8004%) really just fails to serve any identifiable purpose. And that's being generous

You send a signal that down is the direction you intend for it to go. Then maybe next year, fingers crossed, we see a little larger reduction.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Mmm...this de minimis reduction is putting $20 back in the pockets of affluent people and less back in the pockets of less affluent people. Won't be felt. But it's still however many millions of dollars that the city loses that could be put towards something like the the cap over I-95 just proposed between Walnut and Chestnut. The total reduction is .0097% of income. That's insanely small. If it's the same the next couple years, there is still going to be a significant cut if and when an alteration to the tax structure allows for it. These kind of cuts are too small to help anyone and are also too small to avoid sticker shock if there is a real future cut. So the only thing I see it doing is cutting into city funds marginally.

Anything less than an .1% reduction (i.e. 3.9004% to 3.8004%) really just fails to serve any identifiable purpose. And that's being generous

its about the long term trend, not cash in your pocket from year to year. Over a decade or so these reductions mean something. They aren't going to be noticeable year to year. I think the wage tax was almost a % point higher when the reductions started under Rendell. The rates were last this low in the 70s.

[Knight Hospitaller]

^exactly

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

its about the long term trend, not cash in your pocket from year to year. Over a decade or so these reductions mean something. They aren't going to be noticeable year to year. I think the wage tax was almost a % point higher when the reductions started under Rendell. The rates were last this low in the 70s.

I agree with the longterm trend, but I think a reduction of a greater amount every few years would be better received. I also tried to find a listing of each decrease but could not find one. I would hazard a guess that this is one of the lowest decreases ever and the typical decrease is greater.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by br323206

You send a signal that down is the direction you intend for it to go. Then maybe next year, fingers crossed, we see a little larger reduction.

Perhaps. It's ultimately not a big deal in the scheme of things. But I think most people could do without the symbolic gesture.

[Knight Hospitaller]

BREAKING NEWS ON I-95 CAP:

PennDOT just allocated $100 Million. That leaves $35 million to go!

https://billypenn.com/2017/03/02/penndot...100+million+toward+I-95+park+cap+project

Unless Federal highway funds are included in the PennDOT piece, surely we can get a fair piece of that from DC. There might also be funds available from the President's infrastructure spending goal.

[Urbanthusiat]

[Knight Hospitaller]

^ I thought we'd at least get something (since my Scottish group was advised that our monument would have to be moved for replacing the existing cap), but it looks like we'll get it all!

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I agree with the longterm trend, but I think a reduction of a greater amount every few years would be better received. I also tried to find a listing of each decrease but could not find one. I would hazard a guess that this is one of the lowest decreases ever and the typical decrease is greater.

when the concept started under Rendell the reductions were standard and predictable. I think this is simply picking up where they left off. The reductions were always small. Only major change will come with the pending PA state bill.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by 1487

when the concept started under Rendell the reductions were standard and predictable. I think this is simply picking up where they left off. The reductions were always small. Only major change will come with the pending PA state bill.

I found an Inquirer article (paywalled in the Archives) from 1996. That year the wage tax reduction saved the average family $5.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

BREAKING NEWS ON I-95 CAP:

PennDOT just allocated $100 Million. That leaves $35 million to go!

https://billypenn.com/2017/03/02/penndot...100+million+toward+I-95+park+cap+project

Unless Federal highway funds are included in the PennDOT piece, surely we can get a fair piece of that from DC. There might also be funds available from the President's infrastructure spending goal.

Whoa! It's actually happening. I'm sure we can get most of the $35 million from the Feds. The rest could probably be raised via donations, etc.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by br323206

I found an Inquirer article (paywalled in the Archives) from 1996. That year the wage tax reduction saved the average family $5.

Ha! Don't go out and spend it all at one place...LOL.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Whoa! It's actually happening. I'm sure we can get most of the $35 million from the Feds. The rest could probably be raised via donations, etc.

Hell, I'll donate $100,000. Let's crowdfund the remainder!

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by PHL10

…or more than you need 4% of your income, or more than you need the temporary/permanent property tax increase, or more than you need the extra sales tax, or more than you need the liquor by the drink tax, or more than you need the amusement tax on your sports tickets, or more than you need the hotel room surcharge, or more than you need the 2% property transfer tax….these are all specific Philadelphia taxes that aren’t paid outside our municipality by the way but by all menas, let’s keep adding more….for the children of course. Do you think the working mom getting laid off from Shoprite thinks it’s worth her job? Do you think the Pepsi driver getting his hours cut think it’s worth his livelihood?

I’m not pro-soda, I don’t drink the stuff but the notion that the City taxes all this extra stuff and the very predictable, resulting negative impact is blamed by the pols on “Big __________” taking it out on the little guy is a little galling.

I’m out before Summers start cracking heads for this sidebar conversation!

Why is the PreK program income based? Screws the middle class again.

Why not have a lottery for spots?